Response to random apheresis platelets versus HLA-selected platelets versus pooled platelets in HLA-sensitized patients.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown how pooled platelets (PPs) compare to random apheresis platelets (RAPs) when HLA-selected platelets (PLTs) are unavailable for HLA-sensitized patients. The aim of this study was to compare patient responses to RAPs, HLA-selected PLTs, and PPs in HLA-sensitized patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a single-institution retrospective study of patients from January 2014 to April 2017 with a class I calculated panel-reactive antibody of 60% or more. Response to transfusion was determined by a corrected count increment (CCI) up to 1 hour after completion of transfusion. A CCI of 5 or more was considered successful. RESULTS: Seventy-seven units of RAPs, 412 units of HLA-selected PLT, and 388 units PPs were transfused. Mean CCIs when transfusing RAPs, HLA-selected PLTs, and PPs were 2.82, 11.44, and 4.77, respectively (p < 0.0001). Posttest comparison between RAPs and PPs revealed no significant difference in mean CCI while there was a significant difference between HLA-selected PLTs versus RAPs and HLA-selected PLTs versus PPs. The success rates of RAPs, HLA-selected PLTs, and PPs were 31%, 80%, and 35% respectively. There was no significant association of type of PLT and success rate when comparing RAPs versus PPs (p = 0.51) while there was a significant association between success rate and type of PLT transfusion when comparing HLA-selected PLTs with RAPs and PPs. CONCLUSION: HLA-selected PLTs resulted in higher mean CCIs and more successful transfusions. There was no significant difference in mean CCI or success rate when transfusing RAPs versus PPs to HLA-sensitized patients. Future studies should assess clinical outcomes in HLA-sensitized patients receiving each type of PLT product.

Safety evaluation of a lyophilized platelet-derived hemostatic product.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhage causes significant morbidity and mortality in people aged <65 years. A lyophilized platelet-derived hemostatic agent (Thrombosomes) demonstrated hemostatic efficacy in animal models. We report the results of the first safety trial of autologous Thrombosomes given to normal subjects. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Ten subjects received autologous Thrombosomes prepared from their apheresis platelets, and five control subjects received a buffer solution. There were five cohorts, with three subjects per cohort (two in the Thrombosomes group and one in the control group). Doses escalated from 1/1,000 to 1/10 of a proposed efficacious dose. Cohorts 4 and 5 received the highest dose, but in Cohort 5, one-half the dose was infused 2 hours apart. Cohorts 1 through 3 were monitored for 42 days, Cohorts 4 and 5 were monitored for 60 days using hematology, coagulation, and chemistry assays and antibody testing. RESULTS: There were no serious adverse events (AEs) and no subject withdrawals. There were eight treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) in 5 of 15 subjects (33%) (four in the Thrombosomes group and one in the control group). Of four subjects receiving the highest doses, three had TRAEs. One had elevated D-dimer, prothrombin fragment 1 + 2, and white blood cell count (subject had concurrent upper respiratory tract infection); one had T-wave inversions in precordial leads V2 and V3 without elevated troponin or symptoms; and one had a platelet autoantibody without change in platelet count. All subjects' TRAEs resolved by Day 21. CONCLUSION: There were no serious AEs in this small study. Thrombosomes were considered safe at the doses assessed. Future, larger trials will be needed to further assess safety and efficacy.